-
-
cc
@littledan2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @addyosmani @cramforce and
Modules specified inline were previously proposed at TC39, but not included in the final spec.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @littledan @addyosmani and
because, zip files accomplish same thing w/o complicating the language
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @awbjs @littledan and
they do. Are JAR style zip files on a standards track?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cramforce @littledan and
Extralingual, so not within TC39 charter. Platform standards (eg, HTML) could spec.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @awbjs @littledan and
maybe
@slightlylate knows who should do it. I remember Mozilla tried about 5y ago.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cramforce @awbjs and
: we're working on it. Reviving this: https://www.w3.org/TR/web-packaging/ …
3 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @cramforce and
Does the packaging proposal have any impact on JS engine impls?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
: not any obvious ones I can think of.
/cc @cramforce @awbjs @littledan @addyosmani @nolanlawson @domenic
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.